Enabling manufacturers to meet their EHS vision

with innovative, practical, and sustainable solutions.

  • Flame retardants set for 2013 TSCA focus

  • Draft risk assessments have been announced by EPA under their new Work Plan to begin tackling 83 chemicals. These are open for public comment and will be peer-reviewed. EPA may or may not take action to restrict uses under TSCA after the assessments are completed. In the meantime, the press release says:

    “EPA recommends the public follow product label directions and take precautions that can reduce exposures, such as using the product outside or in an extremely well ventilated area and wearing protective equipment to reduce exposure.”

    – even though the draft risk assessment says there is no concern for ATO and HHCB.

  • Canada periodically puts out mandatory survey on batches of chemicals as it works through its prioritization process. For example in June there were 8 MDA/MDI chemicals of interest. It’s a pretty comprehensive set of information demanded of manufacturers, importers and processors: volumes, uses available toxicity information and a list of the top 20 customers. With the possible exception of getting customer lists, such information can be obtained under TSCA section 8 – basically CDR + 8(d) – applied to manufacturers, importers and processors.

  • As follow on to its Chemical Action Plan on Bisphenol A (BPA), EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking July 26, 2011, to develop environmental effects and exposure testing. EPA is not addressing human health effects in this notice as there is ongoing testing work already with other agencies. (See a pointed Trevor Butterworth blog about that work here.)

  • EPA has just posted its draft Alternatives Assessment Methodology on how it will compare the hazards of alternate chemicals in deciding whether or not to designate a product as “Designed for the Environment.” DfE is geared to identifying alternatives that work and are available and are greener than the current chemicals that are being used. The methodology guide offers how to classify hazards as very high-high-moderate-low and has many useful resources for those of you trying to decide which alternatives are “safer.” EPA will be using alternatives analysis when looking at safer alternatives for the Chemical Action Plan priority chemicals.

1 2




© 2005-2018 EHS Strategies | Carefully crafted by Chisel and Brand LLC